OKC - Sure. Hate Westbrook, but I can't deny his talent. Durant's going to be dominant for years to come. They've got solid young guys at every position except center. Perkins & Collison don't match the window of Westbrook & Durant, but I doubt they'll have any trouble filling the C spot when they need one. Clippers, no question? I guess you have way more confidence in CP3's knees than I do. I'm still waiting for Blake to figure out how to do more than dunk the ball. I like Jordan, but the rest of their roster is primarily aging vets. Well, you nailed the Spurs. Two of their top 3 are over 35, so Depends is definitely in the discussion. Parker's the only true star on their roster who has more than a couple of years left. Golden State, is a little farther along in their rebuild, but I don't like their main components as well. Curry's really good, but I think Lillard's a better true PG. Lee's solid, but he's not as good as Aldridge IMHO. Never been a Bogut fan, primarily because he's never healthy. Barnes has promise, but I don't think he's as well rounded as Nic. Memphis - Meh. Rockets? No way. Harden's a stud, but there's nothing else on their roster that's the least bit exciting. Lin is severely overrated.
THIS THIS THIS. Geesh, people undervalue Aldridge. Who on earth would take Harden/Lin/Asik over Lillard/Aldridge? Never mind Batum and Matthews! Wowza. But that's not the question that was asked. I can't believe you would trade Lillard/Aldridge/Batum for Lin/Hardem/Asik. Amazing. And as it was said, we are 2-0 against them.
Rosters are made up of a couple stars and the rest role players,and it all starts with the point guard. Westbrook and Durant are the best duo ahead of us. Clippers with cP3 are next. Then I have to ask myself who is better than Lillard? Curry is playing better right now, but I would still take Lillard long term Lin? No Conley? No Parker? Not in two years Lawson? No PG's are hard to come by. Lillard will be better than all of those in two years. The rest of the roster is comparable to ours other than the bench. And the bench can always be improved. Good young PG's are much tougher to find.
On the contrary. I think PG is one of the easiest positions to fill at the moment. The hand checking rules have really made this the golden age of point guards. Just about every team in the league has someone at the point that they are satisfied with. Shooting guard, small forward and center are the hardest positions to fill right now IMO.
I could not disagree more. It took us how many years to be excited about our PG? There may be a lot of average PG's out there, but few that can do it all. The teams that have them excel. The ones who don't...... suck. And as soon as your starting PG goes down with an injury, you drop quickly in the standings. Look how bad Chicago missed Rose. Washington missing Wall. The Lakers missing Nash. The Knicks missing Felton for crying out loud. If PGs were easy to get, teams would have more than one. Some don't have any. Miami is the rare exception where they don't really have one, yet they are still the champs.. But then they have James and his whiny partner.
The thing is though, when teams like Chicago and Washington lose their point guards, they're losing their franchise players. It's not like they're struggling because they don't have their point guards,... they're struggling because they don't have their franchise player, regardless of position. I think that B-Roy's point is that it's not as important as it used to be, in that most teams have an above-average point guard these days. They don't all have "elite" point guards, but it's hard to find a team with a bad starting point guard these days. The center position, on the other hand, is probably the hardest position to fill.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Your team will be probably be good if you have any elite player, regardless of position. But elite players are hard to get, this we know. All I'm saying is the quality of players from the pool of point guards is higher than any other position in the league. That makes it an easier position to fill. I can barely count on one hand the number of good, young shooting guards or centers, whereas I can list at least 10 really good young points that would be one of the best players on any team they are on.
Observing that another team has more talent has nothing to do with liking them best. If you can't admit that OKC and LAC have very good teams, well, then I don't know what to tell you.
